Gilgamesh; Coordinates on pg 20

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby sailorseal on Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:55 pm

Just a quick note, I like the smears, even though they are big they are creative. I like them
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:11 pm

Missed your 2 neutral city comment so didn't take that into account. Just say with 2 neutral cities out of 8.
Chance of getting 3 or more in 1v1 is huge. In 1v1v1 is still there and 1v1v1v1 may still be there. If gameplay guy raised it, he aint going to forget it.

Intuitively in a 3 player with 6 free each should start with 2 by random chance. Not much of a fluke required for someone to start with one more and get the +1. I'm not even going to run the numbers.

I'd just engage the guy on gameplay to clarify what his tolerence level then craft a solution is rather than redraft & redraft.

Plus I've never played Wales and if you think it is a mess, perhaps you should put that feedback on the Wales forum.
If you have played San Marino or Wales you will know what a mess it is to start on a map that is basically all neutral.


Do you know if neutrals have to be 3 - lots of 1 army neutrals might work. Not too strong, but you can't start with them?
Also what would happen if you coded 3 starting positions of 2 each in 2 player and 3 player on the cities?
Last edited by Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby sailorseal on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:19 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:No idea what are neutrals and what aren't so I 'll refrain from comment. Just say with 2 neutral cities out of 8.
Chance of getting 3 or more in 1v1 is huge. In 1v1v1 is still high and 1v1v1v1 may still be there. If gameplay guy raised it, he aint going to forget it even if you don't get anyone posting about the issue.
Merciless take a look at the current version before you comment, your numbers are off
Plus I've never played Wales and if you think it is a mess, perhaps you should put that feedback on the Wales forum.
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:25 pm

Am a version behind. So numbers are wrong.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby sailorseal on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:28 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Am a version behind. So numbers are wrong.


sailorseal wrote:
Merciless Wong wrote:No idea what are neutrals and what aren't so I 'll refrain from comment. Just say with 2 neutral cities out of 8.
Chance of getting 3 or more in 1v1 is huge. In 1v1v1 is still high and 1v1v1v1 may still be there. If gameplay guy raised it, he aint going to forget it even if you don't get anyone posting about the issue.
Merciless take a look at the current version before you comment, your numbers are off
Plus I've never played Wales and if you think it is a mess, perhaps you should put that feedback on the Wales forum.
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:30 pm

???? - said, haven't seen latest version - ?????

Ok 5 cities not neutral. 3 players. Chance of staring bonus =
No of possibilities 3^5 = 243

5 cities one player = 3 possibilities
4 cities one player = 3 ('players) x 5 (city they don't have) x 2(who has city they don't have) = 30 possiblities
3 cities one player = 3 (players) x 5 x 4 x 0.5 (cities they don't have, 0.5 is because order is irrelevant for city that's left out) x 2 x2 ( who has city they don't have) =120 possibilities

Total 153 possibilities. More than 50%

Sounds high but it makes sense when you realise only way no one has bonus is for cities to be distributed 2 -2 -1
3 -1-1 is more likely than you think.

Perhaps code third starting position is solution.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby oaktown on Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:16 am

Merciless Wong wrote:Perhaps code third starting position is solution.

I've thought about it - in fact I almost did this for my last update - but it would have other side effects. For instance, in a two player game there's no way of knowing which of the three positions the two players will be assigned, and the original intent of assigning two starting positions is to place each player in a 1v1 in Assur. It means giving a player a 1 in 3 chance of starting with both Assur cities, which is worse than if we just let all of the cities be assigned randomly.

But even more important is that I don't much care what happens at the drop in a three player game. If the other two players are on the ball they'll notice the advantage and do something about it; if they aren't they deserve to lose that game. That has nothing to do with luck, it's good play. I'll do what I can to make a map even, but I'm not going to make the map idiot proof! :lol:

As for discussing the matter with the gameplay stamper, I am confident that when iancanton stops by the thread he'll give me his informed opinion of the map. I have every ounce of faith in iancanton, just as I am sure that he had great confidence in the fellow who was the "guy on gameplay" for a year before he took the job.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby tlane on Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:58 pm

Hey oak,
This is my first time posting on this map, and really looking at the map/thread, so sorry if I repeat something.

Graphically this map looks great. I really like the brick background idea, but there are one or two little tweaks that could be made.
1. There are three red smudges in the bottom right corner, 1 on the "er" of Eridu, one right next two Ur, and one small one next two the numbers on Uruk. (theses may just be my screen)
2. It looks to me like the "number smudge" on Assur is much fainter then the others.
3. Is it possible to move the challenge on Humbaba up about 2 or 3 pixels so it is not in the text.

For gameplay the map seems fine to me, and I am sure Ian will address any problems, if there are any.

Also, this is not that big a deal, but 5 of the 7 cities are a whitish/yellowish color and the other two black. Some people(not many though) may think that there are different bonuses for each color, so this is something you can think about changing(you don't need to)

looking great =D> ,
tlane
Private tlane
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: NYC - sint maarten(sometimes)
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; little stuff, pg 7

Postby oaktown on Sat May 02, 2009 1:59 am

Click image to enlarge.
image


Thanks to tlane for the comments. Went back to one color for the cities, and cleaned some stuff up. The army smudges were all different somehow - I had gotten sloppy. Same with the red smears.

I played with alternatives to the river crossing spears, but instead decided to just try to work these into the map better. They don't pop out quite so much, and they've been grunged-up so that no two are the same.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; little stuff, pg 7

Postby gho on Sat May 02, 2009 2:32 am

the brick patterns look too prominent in certain continents (wilds, dilmun etc.) and the ocean/rivers. The brick lines look too straight to be ancient. I like all the icons.
Lieutenant gho
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:13 am
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby Incandenza on Sat May 02, 2009 3:12 am

oaktown wrote:Removed the City State from Ur. There are still seven city states so the bonus structure for holding cities isn't disrupted, but it reduces the value of Sumer because now the region doesn't come with an automatic city state bonus


The history weenie in me recoils at the idea, since Ur was pretty much the First City. I know, I know, form follows function, but could possibly Uruk be sacrificed instead?

oaktown wrote:In 3+ player games there will be 42 territories split up for starts. In 1v1 games each player will start with 14 territories (40÷3+1), and there will be 16 neutral territories. Player 1 (and for that matter player 2) will have an 11% chance of starting the game with the city bonus - those are odds I can live with, especially since player 2 will get to drop 4 armies and try to do something about it.


11% isn't awesome, but you have jumped through an awful lot of hoops to mitigate the chances of a bonus drop... tho it's worth pointing out that if first mover drops the bonus, it's not much of a stretch to think that if he properly utilizes his 5 deployment and gets just a touch north of statistically average dice, the other bloke's at 11 terits and pretty much hosed. What about dropping Karkemish and coding a different city as a neutral start?

Then again, it is 11%... and I feel like it's in bad form for me to excessively nitpick this map for its 1v1 drops when I'll probably never play one on here.

oaktown wrote:Since I'm already coding start positions, I may as well code two of the challenges as well to avoid anybody starting a 1v1 game with that bonus. It won't affect the number of starting territories/player.


Okay, I'm not the world's foremost authority on starting positions, but wouldn't that just throw 2 more "starting position" terits into the general kitty, thus possibly allowing one player to drop both cities and the other to drop both challenges?

Another thing: that blue mountain in northeast Urkesh looks kinda lonely... unless it's supposed to represent a prominent peak, it could be tucked in a bit.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 7

Postby oaktown on Sat May 02, 2009 3:25 pm

Click image to enlarge.
image


Incandenza wrote:The history weenie in me recoils at the idea, since Ur was pretty much the First City. I know, I know, form follows function, but could possibly Uruk be sacrificed instead?

I was hoping nobody would call me on that. And Uruk can't go, because that's the city of Gilgamesh! Part of me wants to stay true to the epic and put the city on Shurupak rather than Babylon, but people will freak out... what Ive done instead is found a subtle way to represent the flood.

(For those of you who do not know, the biblical story of Noah borrows heavily from the earlier Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh: man had become noisy and was keeping the gods from their rest, so rains were sent down to cover the earth. As the rains began to fall, Enki (the creator of mankind) spoke to the house of Utnapishtim and said to build an ark and secure into it two of each creature on earth. After seven days Utnapishtim sends doves and ravens in search of land, and the ark came to rest on Mt. Nimush.)

Anyway, I've restored the city to Ur, removed the cities from Susa and Mari, eliminated the starts, and simplified the city bonus situation.

For those of you scoring at home, there is now a 7.2% chance that a player will start with four cities in a 2 or 3 player game, and a 3.6% chance that player 1 will start with the bonus in a 1v1; in most maps the odds are similar that somebody get lucky in a 1v1, so let 'em take their chances. There is 3.7% chance that a player will start with the Challenges, and 1.8% that this will be player 1; I don't much give a crap about eliminating a 1.8% chance of something happening, but just for good measure I've dropped the challenges bonus to +1.

Incandenza wrote:Okay, I'm not the world's foremost authority on starting positions, but wouldn't that just throw 2 more "starting position" terits into the general kitty, thus possibly allowing one player to drop both cities and the other to drop both challenges?

Coding starts is always problematic, in that you throw off the total number of territories a player has to open the game. As it is now, Player 1 (in a 1v1 or 3 player game) will bein the game with 14 territories, and a four army first placement (unless he was fortunate enough to drop a region). So unless player 1 somehow manages take three territories from player 2 on that first round (I count account for dice), player 2 will also get a four army first placement and should be able to undo whatever damage player 1 did in the first round. Unless they are stupid, which I also can't account for.

Incandenza wrote:Another thing: that blue mountain in northeast Urkesh looks kinda lonely... unless it's supposed to represent a prominent peak, it could be tucked in a bit.

Fixed.

Also made my sig more cuneiform, and played around with some other little things.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby sailorseal on Sat May 02, 2009 3:35 pm

I am not sure whether or not you changed the cities but they look better. I don't see why the Bull of Heaven gets it's own kind of smear, if its not to much work I would change it but otherwise its fine.

I really like the GP of this map
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby oaktown on Sat May 02, 2009 3:40 pm

sailorseal wrote:I am not sure whether or not you changed the cities but they look better. I don't see why the Bull of Heaven gets it's own kind of smear, if its not to much work I would change it but otherwise its fine.

It actually doesn't need a smear at all, since the background color of the territory is so light. The old smear was on there, but there were many comments about the fact that it wasn't visible. I just did that to make people happy - personally I'd like to just remove it entirely.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Sat May 02, 2009 3:46 pm

Okay, 1v1 bonus drop percentages look good, I like what you've done with the cities (can't believe I forgot that Uruk was ole' Gilgy's city, been awhile since I actually read the damn thing), sig looks good... someone get this map a gameplay stamp, stat!
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun May 03, 2009 6:58 pm

Any chance you could make one more city neutral.

With 5 free cities in 1v1 and 4 to get a bonus...there are 32 possibilities (each city can be with player 1 or 2)
Of those 12 scenarios give someone the starting +2.

If you get it down to 4 free cities and 4 to get a bonus, there are 16 scenarios and only 2 give someone the starting +2 . I t would be like "Starting With Australia" odds in Classic Risk.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Sun May 03, 2009 7:22 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Any chance you could make one more city neutral.

With 5 free cities in 1v1 and 4 to get a bonus...there are 32 possibilities (each city can be with player 1 or 2)
Of those 12 scenarios give someone the starting +2.

If you get it down to 4 free cities and 4 to get a bonus, there are 16 scenarios and only 2 give someone the starting +2 . I t would be like "Starting With Australia" odds in Classic Risk.


You'd be way better off talking about percentages. And a 7.2% of a bonus drop with the cities is pretty damn good... lowering it too much more might so devalue the cities as terits as to make them extremely unattractive targets.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby oaktown on Sun May 03, 2009 11:43 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Any chance you could make one more city neutral.

Trouble is that with the current XML options, coding one more city neutral means one less starting territory for all games. I'm not willing to drop to 41 starting territories - it'd mean I'd have to add a territory somewhere else on the map, which just screws thing up even more.

As I've said before, changing one thing affects everything else.

Merciless Wong wrote:With 5 free cities in 1v1 and 4 to get a bonus...there are 32 possibilities (each city can be with player 1 or 2). Of those 12 scenarios give someone the starting +2.

Wow, 12 of 32... a 37% chance of somebody starting with the +2 would be really bad!! It's a good thing your numbers are wrong because you aren't correctly representing the way Conquer Club games assign territories. A 1v1 game has two players, but three starts (1 is neutral). And there are 42 territories on the board to be assigned - how are there only 32 possibilities?

I calculate the odds of one player getting four cities as 7.2%; logically the odds of player 1 having all four is half that. I can live with a 3.6% chance that somebody starts the game with an unfair advantage... that's the nature of 1v1.

In other news, anybody care which city starts neutral? I stuck in the middle, because I figure it can't be ignored and sit neutral all game. And that's probably the last region to fall, so it shouldn't ruin somebody's start.
Image
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Mon May 04, 2009 1:18 pm

Wow, 12 of 32... a 37% chance of somebody starting with the +2 would be really bad!! It's a good thing your numbers are wrong because you aren't correctly representing the way Conquer Club games assign territories. A 1v1 game has two players, but three starts (1 is neutral). And there are 42 territories on the board to be assigned - how are there only 32 possibilities?

I calculate the odds of one player getting four cities as 7.2%; logically the odds of player 1 having all four is half that. I can live with a 3.6% chance that somebody starts the game with an unfair advantage... that's the nature of 1v1.


Here's my working:

2^5 = 32. There are 5 provinces with cities, assuming conquer club will place them all with on player or the other there are
2x2x2x2x2 possibilities.
In 1 of them player 1 has it all
In 1 of them player 2 has it all
In 5 of them player 1 has 4 of the 5 cities
In 5 of them player 2 has 4 of the 5 cities
That's my 12 out of 32 = 37%

The reamaining 20 out of 32 are scenarios where player 1 has 3 cities (10 possibilities)
and player 2 has 3 cities (10 possibilities)

If you wish to model the number of neutals in 1v1 (I presume its 1 out of 40+ territories) it should make a slight difference.

If its 3 starts (1 neutral, meaning neutals will be 1/3 of the board):
3^5= 243 scenarios (focuing only on non hard coded neutral provinces that matter for city bonus)
2 of them they have it all
5 of them p 1 has 4, neutrals have 1
5 of them p 2 has 4, neutrals have 1
5 of them p 1 has 4, other has 1
5 of them p 2 has 4, other has 1

Makes it 22 out of 243 = 9.1%

Note in classic, the chance of starting with australia with
2 players (no neutrals) is 1/16 = 6.25%
3 players (no neutrals) is 1/ 81 = 1.23%
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby MrBenn on Mon May 04, 2009 6:25 pm

Wong, your numbers are wrong, and just add confusion :?

oaktown has answered your call to add more starting neutrals to the map with a much more measured response than my "1v1 = shit happens" in my thread where you raised the same concerns.

It might be time to drop the dead donkey :roll:
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Mon May 04, 2009 6:29 pm

oaktown wrote:In other news, anybody care which city starts neutral? I stuck in the middle, because I figure it can't be ignored and sit neutral all game. And that's probably the last region to fall, so it shouldn't ruin somebody's start.


Assur works, like you say it's right in the middle of the map and won't be like one of those poor outlier AoR terits that only get attacked maybe once every couple hundred games... :D
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Mon May 04, 2009 8:00 pm

Wong, your numbers are wrong, and just add confusion :?


I gave you my working with and without the third start of neutrals.. I'll take a look (eventually) if you post something with content I can respond to.

Trying to settle map questions by "you are wrong" is unproductive and looks more like friends weighing in to push a map forward instead of responding to the content.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Mon May 04, 2009 9:53 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Trying to settle map questions by "you are wrong" is unproductive and looks more like friends weighing in to push a map forward instead of responding to the content.


This is a math question, not a map question. And when someone is wrong in a math question, as you are here I'm sorry to say, then the appropriate response is "you're wrong."
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Mon May 04, 2009 10:47 pm

I'd love to see the working for the 7.2% number.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby oaktown on Tue May 05, 2009 12:44 am

Merciless Wong wrote:There are 5 provinces with cities, assuming conquer club will place them all with on player or the other there are 2x2x2x2x2 possibilities.

As I have already said, this is where your first set of numbers were wrong. CC can place the players on specific territories if you tell it to, which I'm not. So 1/3 of all territories will start neutral.

You're close about the odds of a player dropping four cities being about 9.1%. My ability to do math ain't what it used to be, but I think that your way of working the numbers is a bit simplistic. Yes, in a three-start scenario there are 22 possible combinations for the four cities, but those combinations are replicated many times over in the millions (I'm being conservative) of possible starting scenarios. The 4-0 and 3-1 starts aren't replicated as often as are the other starts.

I got the 7.2% from the spreadsheet that MrBenn developed... he's come out with two versions, one for strict bonuses and one for "make your own" bonuses like this one. His formula may be off and this number may be low, but if it is I would bet that the actually number falls somewhere between his and yours, since his formula considers the total number of starting territories and how that impacts the start %s - yours do not.

Anyway, all that really matters is that player 1 not drop a bonus, since player 1 gets a chance to break it. Even your calculation of a 4.525% chance of this happening is something I - and I'd imagine most CC users - can live with. 1 in 20 games will be lopsided... so what else is new in 1v1? I'd say 100% of 1v1s are lopsided because somebody gets to go first. :lol:

I'm comfortable with the odds, as is the gameplay crew. Let's please move on. If you'd like to continue the discussion about how to calculate start odds I'd be happy to do so (because I'd like to better understand it) but let's not do it in the map thread.
Image
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login